respondent Company. The other contention is violation of Rule B(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Respondent denied the allegation by placing photostat copies of publications in The Financial Express and Mana Telanga dailies dated 11.09.2023 vide material papers at pages 25 and 26 annexed to the reply statement. These documents are not disputed by the applicants. According to applicants own version, they were unable to pay the instalments from February, 2023 and the loan account was classified as NpA on 07.06.2023. Such is the situation, when the EMI was in arrears from February 2023 to 7th June, 2023 i.e., the default period is more than 90 days. Applicants have not placed on record the relevant RBI guidelines if any, that prevent the secured creditors from classification of accounts defaurted for more than 90 days as NPA. Therefore, I do not find any reason to find fault with the respondent in classifying the loan account as NpA on 07.06.2023 when the account was not serviced for more than 90 days. The respondent company denied of any truth in the allegation of violation of Section 26-D in its repry statement. This statement has not been disputed by the applicants. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, applicants have failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the possession notice 06,09.2023 and therefore, the SA is devoid any merit. Accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismissed.
